Why princes and princesses contact marriage with persons of not regal advantage?

1. Turn of absolutely inadmissible and scandalous mismarriages of the beginning of XXI century in royal families of Norway, Denmark, Spain shake bases of their authority. Aspiring as much as possible to democratize the monarchy, they reduce them to a level of usual theatrical properties.

2. The latest news from Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark do not leave doubts that princes have decided to destroy own monarchy. Now in their Kingdoms any child without dependence from its floor can borrow a throne!

3. It is naturally considered as a positive step since keeps within idea of political correctness and emancipation of women. The birth of the daughter at prince of Asturia at once has pushed prime minister Sapatero to declare the beginning of change of the present dynastic legislation of Spain on which the daughter of the successor of the Throne can inherit only after the brother. In opinion of social democrat Sapatero " it breaks the rights of women in royal family ", and that introduction of the Swedish model abolishes the rights of a dynasty since the name and a title pass on a man's line, nobody excites it. And that the future infanta of Spain will marry any football player, the bodyguard or the comedian, it and so it is clear.

4. For example, in the Romanian royal house the same history. After death of Мichael I by the successor its senior daughter who has entered a left-handed marriage with the simple guy by name Rada Duba. Thus, instead of dynasty of Hohenzollern-Sigmarinens in the Romanian royal house to affirm the dynasty of Duba! And it provided that dynasty of Hohenzollern-Sigmarinens safely is well!

5. One question: how to be what daughters of successors of the Scandinavian thrones obviously as well as their fathers will create families on love, instead of with feeling of a duty? How to be what their posterity begins to belong to a new dynasty when it is still alive old - true and lawful?

6. Where there are European monarchy, mixing up with simple people?

Toledo

06-23-2006 12:44 AM

Royals are just people like everyone else who happen to have an ancestor that took power somewhere and passed it to future generations in his family. So they have the same blood as you and I. Well, in my case it has a lot of sugar because I love sweets!
But, a non-royal person marrying a royal does not raise eyebrows like in the past. If they love each other any barrier will break down, starting with class prejudice.

lise

06-23-2006 10:18 PM

I have no problem with marriages between royals and non-royals if they are in love and the non-royal is prepared to take on royal reponsiblity I see no reason to stop the marriage. I'd rather see royals marrying non-royals they love insead of royals marrying royals for duty.

princess olga

06-23-2006 10:43 PM

Russian, you bring up a very valid and interesting point, and one that, in my opinion, goes straight to the core of why billions of people (including myself) can be ambivalent about the very concept of monarchy, of royalty and its place in a society.

While I on the one hand completely agree with Lise's comment, as in, I'm all for royals marrying whomever they happen to love, I agree with you that there is also definitely another side to that coin. And that side is: the more these (reigning) royals opt for a spouse out of the vast crowd of available commoners, the more that happens, the more everyone will think: "well, gee, if that waitress/banker/journalist/fillintheblank girl can marry the heir to the throne, being a good monarch can't be that hard, now could it?!"

Or, worse, they see a, say, Mette Marit getting hitched to the Crown Prince of their country and think, "well, gee, MY daughter could do that too!" Which, and I agree with that, could very well spell the beginning of the end of the concept as a whole, because it erodes the necessary distance and mystery surrounding any monarch.

So in short, I don't know what the right answer is here but I certainly agree that this is a question that will come up more and more.

p.s. as far as cutting a good royal, I happen to think Mette Marit's doing a good job.

princess olga

06-23-2006 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toledo

Royals are just people like everyone else who happen to have an ancestor that took power somewhere and passed it to future generations in his family. So they have the same blood as you and I.

Couldn't agree more Toledo, however, Russian has a good point here: the more these royals pick a non-'blue-blooded' partner, the more the very fact that these royals are really nothing different than the rest of us, will be blatantly, increasingly, clear for all to see. This can of course ultimately trickle down to the point of escalation: where people decide to jettison the whole concept [of having a king in their midst] altogether. (Not that there's anything per se wrong with that: France, Finland, Singapore and the filthy rich US of A are examples of places that get by just fine without a monarch--Russian may beg to differ with me on this one ;)

norwegianne

06-24-2006 04:07 AM

To a certain point, I agree with Russian - the notion of royalty is based on royals marrying royals...

But - if you take a look in the Royal Cousins thread, you can see that a deduction that has been made is that - prior to the recent influx of marrying commoners - was that the royals were simply too inter-related. Olav of Norway and Märtha of Sweden being a prime example. Olav - the son of two cousins who married - married his own cousin, Märtha. Märtha's parents were also related to each other, if not that closely. Getting some new blood in, every now and then for the next generations, will be good.

Also, isn't the term morganatic wrong when it comes to the royal marriages mentioned by Russian in the first post? As I understand it, morganatic marriages mean that the wives do not gain their husband's rank, and the children of the marriage do not inherit anything in terms of the dynasty. But, Ingrid Alexandra, Christian, Victoria, Catharina-Amalia - Elisabeth and Leonor are in line to the throne in their countries - and will stand to inherit. (Leonor possibly pending a brother and/or a change in the constitution, if I've understood it correctly.).

I might have misunderstood, though.

Duc de Chatres

06-24-2006 05:02 AM

I love this subject because it is really controversial and my views tend to be conservative, based on experices from the past twenty or so years. For starters, I strongly believe the position is one for which a person MUST be trained FROM BIRTH. The experience with Diana and Fergie shows this clearly. True, the princess had some very fine qualities that enhanced the image of monarchy but there were others that have left a sour taste and I need not go into that but what I am thinking about is the way she upstaged the Prince of Wales instead of playing the part expected of her-a supportive member of the cast in the background, then using her immense media power to the detriment of the family. Princesses trained from birth know this, and even the Duke of Edinburgh lives by this code-he is there to support the principal partner, The Queen.
Another reason I detest morganatic marriages is that royalty must be seen to be different. When the girl next door marries a future king, their subjects will see minimal differences between themselves and the royal family. This will reduce deference and eventually lead to people thinking "if he's like me, why should we have a king anyway?"
Then there is the whole idea that the upbringing of royal children throughout Europe has changed drastically in the last forty years or so from a uniform policy to... It was easier before-a princess would be imported from a foreign court and she already knew the form and what was expected of her. There were minimal 'surprises' of the Diana and Fergie kind (please note I greatly admired how the Princess of Wales breathed new life into the monarchy).
The last reason is silly but I think Europe will be greatly deprived in the future if you won't have a King of Britian married to a Danish princess who's sister is the Queen of Sweden and whose first cousin is the King of Spain, who in turn is married to the sister of the King of Belgium who's uncle is the Grand Duke of Luxembourg. Complicated family trees make for interesting observation and conversation.

foiegrass

06-25-2006 05:34 AM

i guess if they all keep marrying commoners, then the special thing about them being royalty would be gone ?

auntie

06-25-2006 06:22 AM

My main concern regarding morgonatic marriages is that the royal Jewells are slowly being lost to the families, in previous generations the bride brought to the house she was marrying to a nice addition of royal Jewels, and now, with all the morgonatic marriages going on no new jewells are flowing into the coffers! We have a crown princess with only one tiara(Belgium)! What will the next generation of Royals wear to the royal weddings?

Also, here is a thought: I have noticed that the nobilty and aristocraticy do tend to marry in the upper class, more than most of the Crown Princes or any royal princesses of this generation have!

Another thought is that I feel that people don't mind other royals marrying commoners, but their royals (ie:from their country) should marry within their class!

Furienna

06-25-2006 09:40 AM

Royals marrying royals is a thing of the past. Already many decades ago, four Swedish princes chose to marry "common" women instead of keeping their rights to inherit the thrown. As the generation after this grew up, it became clear, that you couldn't keep royals from marrying commoners any longer, and in that generation of royals, only our king's sister Birgitta married another royal, a Prince Johann of Hozenhollern. The princesses Margareta, Desirée and Christina married commoners, even if Desirée's husband is a nobleman and hardly is a commoner, and king Carl XVI Gustaf himself hardly met any criticism for marrying Silvia Sommerlath, who became our queen, even though she wasn't royal either. None of the king's and queen's children have married yet, but they will hardly marry other royals.

Back in the day, arrenged marriages was the rule for royals. Princes became heirs from birth, but what other use could there be with having a princess, if you couldn't marry her off to a prince or king of another country? And all marriages had to be "equal" to keep that grace of the royal houses. But as it turned out, many of these marriages became very unhappy. Of course, a "love marriage" can end up unhappy too, and some arrenged marriages ended up happy enough, but with an arrenged marriage, where the bride and groom don't know each other before the wedding, the risk of future unhappiness is very big. Norwegianne also brought up the important point, that the royal houses ended up being more or less related to each other, and many royals even got married to their cousins. New blood is needed in every generation, even among royals.

I can agree, that it can be hard for a commoner to cope with being a royal, but as I understand it, common-born queens Silvia and Sonja are both doing a good job, and I think the many common-born crown princess will be good queens too. And at this time and age, it should be more important if an heir loves his bride than if she's a princess.

CrownPrinceLorenzo

06-25-2006 09:42 PM

Even if they marry commoners, they'd still be Royals because they'll still reign.

princess olga

06-25-2006 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by norwegianne

Also, isn't the term morganatic wrong when it comes to the royal marriages mentioned by Russian in the first post? As I understand it, morganatic marriages mean that the wives do not gain their husband's rank, and the children of the marriage do not inherit anything in terms of the dynasty.

I might have misunderstood, though.

No, you have it exactly right, Norwegianne. As it turns out, the definition means two different things depending on geography.

1. a morganatic marriage in German speaking areas means unequality of birth between spouses. That's the definition Russian seems to relate to on this thread.

2. However, the <French> definition is different: there it's refferred to as a union in all but legal name. Or, a secret marriage. I.e. back in the day, when royal marriages meant unions of power, not typically love, the male part of the union might have a 'morganatic wife', as in, his long-term mistress.

Duc de Chatres

06-26-2006 01:52 PM

Morganiatic marriages will always prove to be problematic. Maybe in the Scandanavian countries the concept of monarchy is different. But I think for the good of the Crown, any future King of Britian should restrict himself to aristocratic girls who will know what will be expected of them since the princess market doesn't exist anymore.

CrownPrinceLorenzo

06-26-2006 02:58 PM

Not really. Marriages for Monarchies isn't about power anymore. They can marry whoever the hell they want.

Furienna

06-26-2006 07:05 PM

Yes, really! I don't care who William and Harry will marry. And for our Swedish royal children Victoria, Carl Philip and Madeleine, that would be even harder, for there's hardly any nobility left in Sweden.

soCal girl

06-26-2006 08:10 PM

While I would love to see a royal marriage (i.e. Prince William and Princess Madeleine) just for fun, it isn't realistic anymore. Royals used to marry off their daughters/sons to ensure good relations with other countries but that isn't relevant anymore since the monarchy holds no true power. It's also hard since everyone is somehow inter-related. I think (or hope) that the next generation might do some inter-mingling. There's a pretty good balance between boys and girls. Amalia, Alexia, Elisabeth, Gabriel, Emmaunel, Christian, Ingrid Alexandra, Sverre Magnus, Leonore, Nicolas, Amyeric, Louise, etc. etc. I think it's fine that royals choose to marry for love, I just hope that one time a royal falls in love with another royal. :D

Furienna

06-26-2006 08:25 PM

That's excactly what I think too! I would let a royal marry whoever they loved, but I would also love some new intermarriages. I hope there will be at least one marriage between two royals in the next generation.

princess olga

06-26-2006 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duc de Chatres

Morganiatic marriages will always prove to be problematic. Maybe in the Scandanavian countries the concept of monarchy is different. But I think for the good of the Crown, any future King of Britian should restrict himself to aristocratic girls who will know what will be expected of them since the princess market doesn't exist anymore.

The thing is that the future king of Britain WAS in fact married to a girl who, according to your definition, was arguably even more aristocratic than the prince of Wales himself. If you would compare Diana Spencer's family tree to that of Charles, you'd find that she's related to more English kings than even Charles is!
Yet that very fact didn't prevent their marriage from eventually braking down. Or for example, princess Irene of the Netherlands who married the very royal Carlos Hugo de Bourbon Parma. Ended in divorce.

Contrast that with the by all appearances extremely successful union of King Carl Gustaf of Sweden. Queen Silvia of Sweden was a commoner until at least age 30, yet I'd have a hard time pointing out a royal consort who's better suited to her place in the fold than Silvia is.
I don't think this has anything to do whatsoever with the Swedish concept of monarchy--Silvia would in my opinion have done equally well in, say, Britain.

That said I don't necessarily disagree with you on the whole, because in a way it would diminish the overall perceived 'specialness' of the group of people we call royals. All the same, judging from what I see in the media, the job of royal consort isn't exactly rocket science. Neither is it on the scale of, say, running a global business like, for example, General Motors. The skill set it requires seems to come down to a combination of that of a Diplomat/PR-Spokesperson or politician/Social Worker. Having clean-cut looks and an interest in fellow human beings is also a requirement. Depending on the country, it would also help to have some sort of strategic vision of where you think your country should be headed, but necessary it ain't.

Now, in my view, there are millions of people who could, with some training, fit those job requirements with relative ease.
Don't forget that most of these royals have tons of help: assistants who organize your calendar, ghost writers to pen that witty-and-wise speech, stylists to put together outfits that convey thoughtfulness for the assignment while cutting a good picture, etc.

Sometimes one can wonder how much these royals actually figured out for themselves! This is why 'morganatic' marriages according to the 'German' definition, can work just fine. Question is: Do royal 'delegates', as in, 'the people', buy into whichever commoner grabs the scepter, and will they indefinitely?

Furienna

06-26-2006 08:40 PM

Our Carl Gustaf and Silvia are a good example of a succesful marriage between a royal and a commoner. Doesn't Harald and Sonja of Norway fall into that cathegory too? I also think all crown princesses like Mette-Marit, Mary, Maxima, Mathilde and Letizia will become good queens one day. Even Camilla will probably be as good as Brittish queen as Diana could have been.

Lady Jennifer

06-26-2006 09:54 PM

But I think you can be a commoner & know what will be expected of you. Its not Cinderella. You have to go into it with both eyes open & not expect it to be all tiaras & fancy dresses. I actually think commoner's who marry into the Royal Families do a better job (sometimes). They've been on the other & they know & have seen how the Royal Families are held up on a pedestal. But that is just my $0.02 in the matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duc de Chatres

Morganiatic marriages will always prove to be problematic. Maybe in the Scandanavian countries the concept of monarchy is different. But I think for the good of the Crown, any future King of Britian should restrict himself to aristocratic girls who will know what will be expected of them since the princess market doesn't exist anymore.